OK guys, here is my latest creation. I took a 1860 Army 44 Sheriffs barrel and
put it on my 1851 Navy Sheriffs model. I can change either way now. What
do you all think looks the best, Army or Navy? I know I just got too much
time on my hands.

http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o127/prizzel/ArmyvsNavy.jpg

sebou

May 18, 2010, 12:34 AM

hello
that nice, but is it firing with an other caliber yet ? (or maybe the 1851 is on .44 caliber ?)
I guess that not secure to use.
However, who is the brand manufacturer ? I ask you, because i see the frame's screws near to both.
Seb

DustyBottoms

May 18, 2010, 12:36 AM

I've been pondering whether or not this would actually work, myself.
Putting a '60 barrel on a '51 .44 frame.
I admit, it looks good in Photoshop ;)

...But is it plausible?

CajunPowder

May 18, 2010, 01:23 AM

I think the top one looks like something Batman should be carrying in a pre-WWII edition.

RemTim

May 18, 2010, 12:50 PM

IMHO, the bottom version, abso-friggin-lutely!!!

Hawg

May 18, 2010, 12:56 PM

Frames are the same for .44's but the 36's don't have the step required for the larger .44 cylinders.

clang

May 19, 2010, 10:56 AM

Go Army, beat Navy!

Dino.

May 19, 2010, 11:39 AM

+1 for the Army version.

Hardcase

May 19, 2010, 01:06 PM

Go Army, beat Navy!

http://www.fluidlight.com/images/bill_goat.jpg

suzukibruce

May 19, 2010, 03:09 PM

GO ARMY! BEAT NAVY! oh sorry i thought this was a football thread....

surbat6

May 20, 2010, 01:00 PM

Actually, the Army version is a bit closer to an original type (with shortened barrel assembly and grips) of the 19th century. AFAIK, there was never a Navy version with the rebated cylinder from any period manufacturer.
That said, the Army version is really neat!
I'd like to know which one YOU like best, KWHI.

Well. I really like the Army best. But I just can't see paying 125 for the barrel,
Then paying another 50 or so for the loading lever. So, I guess I will be content with just looking at the picture I made.

idaram

May 20, 2010, 02:03 PM

The first 100 of the 1860 Army model were on navy grips. There is a picture of one in the old Colt firearms history book. (the name of the book escapes me at the moment)

Best.....Andy

w_houle

May 20, 2010, 02:05 PM

The top one. Pietta never made an 1860 Civilian (Uberti did), but you can hide the last bit of 1851ness by using a gated conversion cylinder. Ive been kinda wanting to do it for a while, but never got off my lazy...
Oh, and Pietta uses longer cylinders.

I'm sure you know the cylinder in the gun is a 45 Colt 5 shot Howell. The gun
is a Pietta

DustyBottoms

May 20, 2010, 03:07 PM

Well. I really like the Army best. But I just can't see paying 125 for the barrel,
Then paying another 50 or so for the loading lever. So, I guess I will be content with just looking at the picture I made.

Yes, to the Krist, but with the ring the cylinder is shorter and will not accept
45 Colt. You have to use 45 Scholdfield ammo.

w_houle

May 21, 2010, 01:58 PM

Yes, to the Kirst,
Richards or Richards-Mason?

arcticap

May 23, 2010, 12:06 AM

Considering that the Pietta Navy's front sight is known for causing a very high point of impact due to being too low, I wonder how much closer to the point of aim the Army barrel will shoot to?
The Army sight does look to be a little bit higher.
Does anyone know how high the Pietta Colt Army's generally impact at 25 yards?